BackgroundAntithrombotic treatment is a continuous therapy that is often performed in general practice and requires careful safety management. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a best-practice model that applies major elements of case management and patient education, can improve antithrombotic management in primary healthcare in terms of reducing major thromboembolic and bleeding events.MethodsThis 24-month cluster-randomized trial will be performed with 690 adult patients from 46 practices. The trial intervention will be a complex intervention involving general practitioners, healthcare assistants, and patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation. To assess adherence to medication and symptoms in patients, as well as to detect complications early, healthcare assistants will be trained in case management and will use the Coagulation-Monitoring List (Co-MoL) to regularly monitor patients. Patients will receive information (leaflets and a video), treatment monitoring via the Co-MoL and be motivated to perform self-management. Patients in the control group will continue to receive treatment as usual from their general practitioners. The primary endpoint is the combined endpoint of all thromboembolic events requiring hospitalization and all major bleeding complications. Secondary endpoints are mortality, hospitalization, strokes, major bleeding and thromboembolic complications, severe treatment interactions, the number of adverse events, quality of anticoagulation, health-related quality of life, and costs. Further secondary objectives will be investigated to explain the mechanism by which the intervention is effective: patients’ assessment of chronic illness care, self-reported adherence to medication, general practitioners’ and healthcare assistants’ knowledge, and patients’ knowledge and satisfaction with shared decision making.Practice recruitment is expected to take place between July and December 2012. Recruitment of eligible patients will start in July 2012. Assessment will occur at three time points: baseline and follow-up after 12 months and after 24 months.DiscussionThe efficacy and effectiveness of individual elements of the intervention, such as antithrombotic interventions, self-management concepts in orally anticoagulated patients, and the methodological tool of case management, have already been extensively demonstrated. This project foresees the combination of several proven instruments, as a result of which we expect to profit from a reduction in the major complications associated with antithrombotic treatment.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN41847489

BackgroundIn Germany, patients suffering from life-limiting conditions are eligible for specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC). Evaluation of the quality of this service lacks currently integration of patient-relevant outcomes. There is also no scientific consensus how to prove quality of care in the special context of SOPC adequately. Existing quality reports are primarily based on descriptive structural data which do not allow for estimation of process quality or result quality. The ELSAH study (‘Evaluation of Specialized Outpatient Palliative Care in the German state of Hesse’) aims to choose - or, if necessary, to adopt - to evaluate and to implement a suit of measures to assess, evaluate and monitor the quality of specialized, home-based palliative care.MethodsAll 22 SOPC teams providing their services in the state of Hesse, Germany, participate in the ELSAH study. The study is divided in two phases: a preparation phase and a main study phase. Based on the findings of the preparation phase we have chosen a preliminary set of instruments including the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale, Views on Care, Zarit Burden Interview, Phase of Illness, Goal Attainment Scaling, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, Consumer Quality Indices Palliative Care and Sense of Security in Care. During the main study phase, we will use a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the instruments’ psychometric properties (reliability, validity, feasibility and practicability), to identify barriers, facilitators and limitations of their routine use and to explore how their use affects the care within the SOPC setting.DiscussionAt the end of this study, an outcome- and patient-centered, validated measurement approach should be provided, adapted for standardized evaluations in SOPC across patient groups, palliative care services and regions nationwide. The standardized application of instruments should allow for making valid statements and comparisons of health care quality in SOPC based on process- and outcome-evaluation rather than relying on structural data only. Moreover, the instruments might directly influence the care of patients in palliative situations.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00012421).

BackgroundBy performing case management, general practitioners and health care assistants can provide additional benefits to their chronically ill patients. However, the economic effects of such case management interventions often remain unclear although how to manage the burden of chronic disease is a key question for policy-makers. This analysis aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 24 months of primary care case management for patients with a long-term indication for oral anticoagulation therapy with usual care.MethodsThis analysis is part of the cluster-randomized controlled Primary Care Management for Optimized Antithrombotic Treatment (PICANT) trial. A sample of 680 patients with German statutory health insurance was initially considered for the cost analysis (92% of all participants at baseline). Costs included all disease-related direct health care costs from the payer’s perspective (German statutory health insurers) plus case management costs for the intervention group. A-Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) measurement (EQ-5D-3 L instrument) was used to evaluate utility, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to assess cost-effectiveness. Mean differences were calculated and displayed with 95%-confidence intervals (CI) from non-parametric bootstrapping (1000 replicates).ResultsN = 505 patients (505/680, 74%) were included in the cost analysis (complete case analysis with a follow-up after 12 and 24 months as well as information on cost and QALY). After two years, the mean difference of direct health care costs per patient (€115, 95% CI [− 201; 406]) and QALYs (0.03, 95% CI [− 0.04; 0.11]) in the two groups was small and not significant. The costs of case management in the intervention group caused mean total costs per patient in this group to rise significantly (mean difference €503, 95% CI [188; 794]). The ICER was €16,767 per QALY. Regardless of the willingness of insurers to pay per QALY, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective never rose above 70%.ConclusionsA primary care case management for patients with a long-term indication for oral anticoagulation therapy improved QALYs compared to usual care, but was more costly. However, the results may help professionals and policy-makers allocate scarce health care resources in such a way that the overall quality of care is improved at moderate costs, particularly for chronically ill patients.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN41847489.

No abstract